Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[PaloAltoCougar]

I have to remain a republican so I can vote in the utah primaries which is where all the elections are decided.

Understood. I’d do the same thing if I lived in Utah. In California, my bold and courageous stand means nothing. Still, the deed is done. One upside: fewer spam emails from twits like Devin Nunes.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is interesting. From the NYT:

And yet seven Republicans voted to convict him, making this by far the most bipartisan impeachment effort in American history. It is worth remembering that until a year ago, when Mr. Romney cast the lone Republican “guilty” vote in Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial, no senators had ever voted to convict a president from their own party.

[Jeff Lebowski]

God bless Mitt Romney.

Embedded Tweet

[All-American]

It does matter, and I'm not saying that process and precision are unimportant, just that sometimes the process is frustrating. I see a stinking pile of shit that needs to be removed, but that doesn't happen because the law nerds are busy picking out bits of corn and arguing whether the bits are actually food or excrement. Just take the pile away already.

Look, let’s be clear here: it doesn’t happen because it’s not what either side wanted.

[Non Sequitur]

None taken.

In any event I don’t think this haggling need stop anyone from getting to the ultimate question of right and wrong, but in a nation ruled by law how you get there matters.

It does matter, and I'm not saying that process and precision are unimportant, just that sometimes the process is frustrating. I see a stinking pile of shit that needs to be removed, but that doesn't happen because the law nerds are busy picking out bits of corn and arguing whether the bits are actually food or excrement. Just take the pile away already.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have to remain a republican so I can vote in the utah primaries which is where all the elections are decided.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Mitch McConnell's reasons for voting against conviction, which I think accurately reflects the views of most or all the GOP senators, can be summed up with the following passages from McConnell's speech (the last sentence, however, is mine--but it's still accurate):

Former President Trump's actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty. Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored. No. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily -- happily -- as the chaos unfolded.

So, even though Trump clearly and flagrantly violated his constitutional oath of office, I can’t vote to convict and impose the constitutionally sanctioned penalty of disqualification from future office because I delayed holding the trial until after Trump had skipped town.

And this is why, beginning Monday, I will no longer be a registered Republican for the first time in nearly 50 years. BTW, I fully accept that many Democrats can be as fast and loose with their principles as today's Republicans. I'm not joining them either.

[BlueK]

Well. It will be interesting to see where the GOP goes from here. I have little doubt Trump runs for office again in 2024. I think the GOP will continue to lose ground with DJT at the helm.

They're in trouble. They've completely lost the middle.

[Bo Diddley]

Well. It will be interesting to see where the GOP goes from here. I have little doubt Trump runs for office again in 2024. I think the GOP will continue to lose ground with DJT at the helm.

[BlueK]

Exactly. The House blew this one by going for maximum drama in charging him with INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION. All they had to do was back of the sexier high crime (felony) and hit him with the easily provable misdemeanor of reckless endangerment. I think it still would have been close due to the political nature of the proceeding, but it would have been a lot less predictable. Charge correctly because there is no plea bargaining in impeachment.

Yeah, hard to believe anything would have changed the result. You can point at the words of the impeachment article but there's no way different wording would have caused enough Republicans to vote differently. The next roadblock would have been that Trump is no longer in office even though that argument was thoroughly debunked on the first day.

[Bo Diddley]

Exactly. The House blew this one by going for maximum drama in charging him with INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION. All they had to do was back of the sexier high crime (felony) and hit him with the easily provable misdemeanor of reckless endangerment. I think it still would have been close due to the political nature of the proceeding, but it would have been a lot less predictable. Charge correctly because there is no plea bargaining in impeachment.

I am highly skeptical.

[Copelius]

None taken.

In any event I don’t think this haggling need stop anyone from getting to the ultimate question of right and wrong, but in a nation ruled by law how you get there matters.

Exactly. The House blew this one by going for maximum drama in charging him with INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION. All they had to do was back of the sexier high crime (felony) and hit him with the easily provable misdemeanor of reckless endangerment. I think it still would have been close due to the political nature of the proceeding, but it would have been a lot less predictable. Charge correctly because there is no plea bargaining in impeachment.

[Moliere]

No offense, but this is why so many have such a distaste for your trade. Niggling over parts of speech to divert attention away from the ultimate question of what is right and what is wrong.

Well, words have meaning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[All-American]

No offense, but this is why so many have such a distaste for your trade. Niggling over parts of speech to divert attention away from the ultimate question of what is right and what is wrong.

None taken.

In any event I don’t think this haggling need stop anyone from getting to the ultimate question of right and wrong, but in a nation ruled by law how you get there matters.

[Non Sequitur]

The question thus raised it this: is it enough, for purposes of impeaching and convicting a President, that the results of his conduct be foreseeable, even if not actually foreseen?

No offense, but this is why so many have such a distaste for your trade. Niggling over parts of speech to divert attention away from the ultimate question of what is right and what is wrong.